Dittmer Properties, L.P. v. Federal Deposit Insurance
708 F.3d 1011
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- Barkley Center General Partnership had two equal general partners, Peters and Dittmer, with Peters authorized by a durable POA to manage Barkley’s affairs.
- Peters, as Barkley’s managing partner, caused Premier Bank to loan Barkley $2,550,000 secured by Barkley property.
- Loan proceeds largely funded Peters’ personal Cedar Creek properties, while Joe Dittmer died in 2007, Peters in 2008.
- Dittmer—on Peters’ half interest—sued Premier Bank in state court to void the loan and halt a sale of encumbered property.
- FDIC was appointed receiver of Premier Bank in 2010 and moved to substitute itself (and later CADC) as defendant in federal court actions.
- The district court dismissed/remanded claims under FIRREA and res judicata; this appeal concerns the district court’s Rule 12(b) dismissal and related issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FIRREA § 1821(j) bars injunctive relief. | Dittmer contends CADC is not shielded, so injunctive relief should be available. | FDIC argues § 1821(j) bars relief that restrains receiver powers, regardless of current holder. | Yes; § 1821(j) bars injunctive relief even after transfer. |
| Whether Dittmer has standing to seek relief against the FDIC. | Dittmer alleges injury from Peters’ authority and loan proceeds to Barkley; partnership injury shown. | Peters’ authority defeats cognizable partnership injury; no standing to sue. | No standing; district court properly dismissed the FDIC claim. |
| Whether common law claims against FDIC survive. | Claims for commercially reasonable loan, ordinary care, unjust enrichment, and funds conversion seek monetary relief. | Anti-injunction provisions preclude certain relief; district court appropriately dismissed these against FDIC. | Yes for some claims survive; the court dismissed those rooted in injunctions, but analyzed others for standing. |
| Whether res judicata bars the second case. | Second suit mirrors first; parties are in privity; it should proceed. | Identical claims and parties bar the subsequent suit. | Yes, res judicata barred the second case. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hindes v. FDIC, 137 F.3d 148 (3d Cir. 1998) (anti-injunction bars extend to receivers and third parties)
- Pyramid Constr. Co. v. Wind River Petroleum, Inc., 866 F. Supp. 513 (D. Utah 1994) (disposition of assets remains within FIRREA power bar)
- Bank of Am. Nat'l Ass'n v. Colonial Bank, 604 F.3d 1239 (11th Cir. 2010) (two-step inquiry: is action within receiver powers; would it restrain those powers)
- Tri-State Hotels, Inc. v. FDIC, 79 F.3d 707 (8th Cir. 1996) (exhaustion under § 1821(d); anti-injunction bar not contemplated by Tri-State footnote)
- Henrichs v. Valley View Development, 474 F.3d 609 (9th Cir. 2007) (distinguishable facts; not controlling where FDIC remains party vs. third-party asset transfer)